The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified. Held: A judge must adopt the same ‘parallel analysis’ leading to the same ‘ultimate balancing test’, as described … Continue reading Norfolk County Council v Webster and others: FD 1 Nov 2006
The provisions of rule 4.16(7) providing for confidentiality in children proceedings were Convention compliant: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the . .
The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing.
Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the . .
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
The applicant sought to set aside the standard form of order incorporated into the dismissal on 17th November 1997 of his appeal against the making of a section 91(14) order, preventing the identification of a child involved. Held: It is now the rule that a child involved in proceedings in the Court of Appeal must … Continue reading In Re R (Minor) (Court of Appeal: Order Against Identification): CA 1 Dec 1998
The father applied to the court to have the media excluded from the hearing into the residence and contact claims relating to his daughter. Held: It was for the party seeking such an order to justify it. In deciding whether or not to exclude the press in the welfare or privacy interests of a party … Continue reading Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2): FD 14 Jul 2009
There is nothing inherently different in Family Division proceedings to justify an implied ban on all disclosures of matters proceeding in chambers. Here no children or other sensitive matters were involved. The simple filing of an affidavit . .
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .
The father sought to withdraw his application for contact, but the court took the opportunity to explain some points relating to contact disputes.
Held: Such disputes engender very deep feelings. Courts must ensure contact with both parents . .
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .
